Category Archives: General

by Barry Kelly | January 28, 2013 · 8:40 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 32

Management of Complexity (Photo credit: michael.heiss)

Nearly every day I hear someone saying, “I can’t believe what I just heard the administration is doing.” If there ever was a bi-partisan statement, this is it. Democrats or Republicans, it makes no difference when it comes to dumbness.

English: Seal of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since the first days of centralized authority, government dumbness has been with us. In the last 150 years, the level of government centralization has steadily grown to levels that jeopardize the continued development of our civilization. The roots of centralization have been nurtured by an explosion of progress in the transmission and processing of information. Good thing? Maybe yes. But many good things have dangerous side effects.

It is usually true, the closer a leader or manager is to a situation or problem, the more they know about the facts and can fix the problem or recommend a wise course of action. A hallmark of an effective leader and manager is their ability to put a premium on the advice from ‘people on the ground.’ As governments have moved more toward centralization, managers have been moved further and further from people on the ground. There are myriad management levels between the point of contact with the situation or problem and the top-level decision maker. Government managers, in my favorite example, of the Department of Homeland Security, are several light years beyond their span of control. While I don’t think the recent and current heads of Homeland Security are exemplary managers or leaders, no human can do more than pretend they can manage something as large and diverse as Homeland Security or the Intelligence Community or a number of other government agencies and departments.

You see, the catalyst of expanding centralization is the speed of information transmission and processing. Managers believe because they can communicate they can understand and manage. This is a dangerous illusion. How well did Presidents Johnson and Nixon, Secretary of Defense McNamara, and later National Security Advisor Kissinger personally manage the Vietnam War? Not well. I was there and read many of their directives. Some verged on comic relief.

A few organs of government like the Defense Department and NASA have been able to somewhat mitigate the downside of centralization because at all levels, except the very top, managers come from men and women on their way up the management ladder. They and their staffs can receive and understand the flow of information. They understand the culture. In a sense they have all been there, done that. I believe the only remedy to the downsides of centralization is to ensure organizations are made up nearly entirely of men and women who have had a deep immersion in various mission levels of their organization and to decentralize those departments and agencies that have an impossible scope of attention and management for anyone. Letting the states manage their own affairs according to the Constitution will check rampant centralization. This is truly a bi-partisan issue.

By the author of the Jack Brandon Thriller Series.

http://www.factsandfictions.com

2 Comments

Filed under centralization, complexity, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, General, information technology, Intelligence & Politics, management theory, political solutions, Politics

Tagged as politics

by Barry Kelly | November 28, 2012 · 2:06 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 28

politics (Photo credit: Asoka G M)

LEADERSHIP, NOT NOW

The nation is in trouble. Trouble, that is not the fault of either political party. We are all to blame. The problem is identifying and fixing the tax code, Government spending, social programs, allocation of resources and regulations. The problem can be fixed. Beginning to correct what needs corrected is not hard. What is hard is finding the leaders who can move us toward the required results. Leadership is sometimes defined as a person who can influence a group of people toward a specific result. If you have found that kind of leadership in our political system, you are either very kind or a lot smarter than I am. I’m from the school that believes leaders and managers are not necessarily the same thing. Managers are born out of experience. Leaders are born. Governor Romney is an example of a very good manager. The people were looking for a leader and he didn’t convince them he was that person. President Obama is neither a leader nor a manager, except of campaigning. There have been few equals of the President when it comes to winning election against formidable odds. He wasn’t born a leader and he didn’t have the opportunities or desire to learn management skills. And they must be learned in a crucible where results and progress are harshly measured. My examples of Presidential leaders are Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. Every major American industry has produced scores of good managers. Even the Government has had a few.

Don’t blame the President for seeming like he is always campaigning. He has mastered that skill and with David Axelrod in his corner, he is a winner. One of my rules of life is that no matter what the problem, people do what they know how to do. Our President knows how to win elections. Don’t fault him for talking to the people. He won on a successful campaign of dividing the populace. Don’t expect him to now work to bring the people together to solve our common problem. He can’t and he won’t. Why change when you are winning? He promised to transform America and he is making progress. To transform anything you must destroy the existing system. Is he a champion of Capitalism, the free market, individual freedoms or the belief that economic growth is the answer to overall prosperity? Off the basketball court, I don’t believe he sees winners and those who don’t. His fair shot rhetoric means to lessen the gap between those who have too little material goods and those who have more than enough, by handicapping our best achievers.

On the other side of our political spectrum are those who lost a political campaign when all odds were in their favor. Until they figure out who they are and that the goal of political life is more than getting re-elected, don’t expect much help from them. Fiscal cliff or not, go over it or not, is not the issue. Getting the Democrats to move back toward the center and the Republicans to move into the 21st century and both recognizing the crisis is at least half their fault, must come before a responsible solution is even remotely possible. Expect instead more kicking the oil drum down the street. Oil drums don’t kick very far, especially uphill.

http://www.factsandfictions.com By the Author of the Jack Brandon Thriller Series.

4 Comments

Filed under Alexrod, Capitalism, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, fiscal cliff, General, Intelligence & Politics, political solutions, Politics, Romney

Tagged as Barack Obama, government, Leadership, Mitt Romney, politics, Republican, United States

by Barry Kelly | October 31, 2012 · 2:04 pm

Eight Decades of Insights 25

Before You Vote

Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Progressives please look over the following checklist before exercising your right to vote.

All of us should think twice before putting a person in the White House who:

* Has not shown he or she is willing and eager to undertake the difficult job of being a hands on President;

* Has not demonstrated an ability of working with political opponents;

* Does not believe in the doctrine of the separation of powers among the three equal branches of Government;

* Believes in growing the powers of the Federal Government over the Constitutional powers of the States;

* Does not believe there is a distinct difference between civil crimes committed by US citizens and acts of war/terrorism committed by foreign nationals;

*Does not believe Capitalism and the doctrine of Free Markets are the foundation of the American Economy;

* Believes Socialism, Government spending, and Government jobs are the path to an expanding economy;

* Believes in the cradle to grave care of a centralized Government over Individual initiative and personal responsibility;

* Does not believe in American Exceptionalism;

* Does not recognize that national strength is the road to peace;

* Speaks and acts as if the world is the way he believes it is and not the way it actually is;

* Uses the rhetoric of class warfare to govern America;

* Believes in government conducted in secrecy using Czars rather than Senate confirmed Cabinet members to govern;

* Believes an annual budget accepted and approved by Congress is unnecessary;

* Does not believe a balance budget is a good near term goal;

* Believes the role of the Attorney General is to protect the Administration from Congressional Inquiry;

* Does not believe the protection of Americans serving abroad is his responsibility;

* Favors Islamic nations over Israel in middle east disputes;

* Is afraid of regular press conferences to inform the American people;

*Conducts foreign policy negotiations with Russia through whispered messages to Putin via Medvedev; (caught by an open mike)

* Doesn’t accept that the President gets all credit for the good his administration accomplishes, but also the blame for all failures.

http://www.factsandfictions.com by the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series

Eight Decades of Insights – 12

Every civilization is built on a foundation of words. Words are (or were) the measure of a person. As I was growing up in small mill town in Western Pennsylvania, I learned you judged people by how good their “word” was. Wealth, talent, strength, the car you drove, and the girls you dated were important, but nothing was as valuable as the reliability of your word. Your reputation in all fields depended upon the integrity of your word. Once that was gone, it was nearly impossible to get it back. I submit that it is the same with nations, political parties, politicians, and leaders.

I don’t believe that modern-day politicians value the integrity of the words they speak and print. This is dangerous; without truth and honesty, our freedom is at risk. The end does not justify the means. Administrations based on the principles espoused by Lenin, Goebbels, or Alinsky have not lasted. On the extreme right, we find dictatorship of the oligarchies; on the extreme left we find equally ugly dictatorships. Both use words or propaganda to further their goals. The truth does not matter to them. It is good to distort the truth as long as the lies promote the end. The end in political terms is the goal of creating a just and fair society where the rulers know what the people need and use whatever means are necessary to achieve and protect their utopia.

History has seen many examples of a few believing they – not the people – know best. How did that work for the Nazis, the various communist regimes, experiments in socialism and Islam, and for several other ancient empires? They did not leave much behind, except fading memories of ugly repression. None of them could stand the truth. They all used words to further their causes and beliefs. The theory that “the end justifies the means” reigned supreme. Freedom is the final casualty when words are only a means to an end. How can you believe anyone, especially a politician struggling to hold on to power, who doesn’t care or even think about the consistency of his word?

The word of the leaders of a great nation, like the United States, both in domestic areas and foreign affairs must carry the weight of truth and conviction. When leaders change positions, not because of a changed conviction, but merely to support a more expedient political policy, the power of their word is lost. Their conviction is suspect. Foreign powers study the words of our leaders. When they see no consistency or willingness to back words and convictions with action, they will disregard the words of our leaders. Our friends will no longer trust us. The possible examples are nearly unlimited but here are a few.

Remember our secretary of state saving she viewed Assad of Syria as a reformer and only months later was calling for him to abdicate? Remember the president changing words, without a believable change in conviction, over tax issues, war strategy, medical care, and budget issues?

The end justifying the means is the most probable explanation. What does their word mean? Can you trust it? Reading the words of Saul Alinsky, a radical revolutionary writer and former Community Organizer in Chicago, will help you understand. Both our president and secretary of state are familiar with Mr. Alinsksy’s writing. Maybe you should be also.

Insights of Eight Decades #2

The airliner, full of passengers from all walks of life, is in its final landing stages. One of the passengers, an Islamic Jihadist, is preparing to kill every one of them. Only he fails to set off the explosives hidden in his underpants. His actions attract attention from the passengers and crew and he is quickly overcome and taken into custody upon landing. The story should be that he was taken off for interrogation and after some hours or days of questioning, using no torture, he tells his captors all they want to hear and is sent to Gitmo where he is tried by a military tribunal, found guilty and executed. The information gained is used to protect our citizens. End of story.

Not quite. You see we have an Attorney General (AG) who wants to extend some of the rights and protections of United States Citizens to foreign nationals who are trying to kills us. Foreign terrorists, who were not captured on the field of battle or were not wearing a uniform of any recognized nation, have little or no legal protection beyond the requirements of our humanity. Let’s agree there are a few exceptions. Taliban fighters captured on the battle field could be covered by the Geneva Conventions, al Qaeda terrorists are not. In our past wars the terrorists would have been summarily executed.

The AG’s view is supported by a number of well minded citizens who believe every captured foreign terrorist has the protection of our Founding Documents and Law. Therefore, they should be tried in our civilian court system where the rules of evidence and required legal assistance severely limit the prosecution. Evidence collected on the battle field or in the process of apprehending a terrorist organization will often not be permitted in a civilian court. The very process of submitting evidence collected, at some personnel risk, by the military, law enforcement and intelligence organizations threatens the exposure of the sources and methods used by the people trying to protect us.

The underpants bomber is now ‘lawyered up’ and whining about how the FBI violated his rights. Is something wrong here?